[CESG] RE: [CMC] Re: Proposed new development time limits

[Jean-Luc.Gerner at esa.int]

Peter,
I can only agree with these wise suggestions.

regards
Jean-Luc Gerner
TEC-ETN
Tel: +31 71 565 4473


                                                                             
             "Allan, PM                                                      
             (Peter)"                                                        
             <P.M.Allan at rl.ac.u                                           To 
             k>                         "Adrian J. Hooke"                    
             Sent by:                   <adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov>, CCSDS 
             cesg-bounces at mailm         Management Council                   
             an.ccsds.org               <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>, CCSDS       
                                        Engineering Steering Group - ADs     
                                        <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>             
             18/08/2006 12:56                                             cc 
                                        CCSDS Secretariat                    
                                        <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>      
                                                                     Subject 
                                        [CESG] RE: [CMC] Re: Proposed new    
                                        development time limits              
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             




I am sure that we all want to have the standards development process move
along as quickly as it can, while recognising that things do take time. The
example that Gilles quotes is a real one, but I believe it would be
unacceptable for all standards to take that long. I suggest that when a new
working group is created, then there should be a realistic assessment of how
long the work is expected to take (as is already done), but then there should
be serious consideration given as to whether that time is acceptable, or
whether important customers for the standard are going to be grumbling, even
if we deliver to our planned schedule.

The sooner we foresee trouble, the sooner we can do something about it, and I
do not rule out the option of realising that we need to do something
radically different from what was originally planned.

Cheers

Peter Allan


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Peter M. Allan
Head, Space Data Division
Space Science and Technology Department
CCLRC/Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Chilton
Didcot Tel: +44 (1235) 445723
Oxon OX11 0QX fax: +44 (1235) 446667
England e-mail: p.m.allan at rl.ac.uk




From: cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On
Behalf Of Adrian J. Hooke
Sent: 28 July 2006 17:33
To: CCSDS Management Council; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs
Cc: CCSDS Secretariat
Subject: [CMC] Re: Proposed new development time limits

--------------------------------------------
      At 02:56 AM 7/28/2006, Gilles Moury Gilles:
      ... it seems to me that time limits should be at least increased to :
        - phase 1 : 24 months
           - phase 2 : 12 months (2 cycles), 18 months (3 cycles)
           - phase 3 : 6 months
--------------------------------------------
      At 03:22 AM 7/28/2006, Jean-Francois.Kaufeler at esa.int wrote:
      I agree with the principle. I am less sure about the time figures. It
      would mean 3 years between start of work and standard publication! This
      may be the case for ISO, but our ambition should be to do it faster
      e.g. 2 years.
---------------------------------------------

We clearly have some differing opinions about the amount of time that should
be allocated between chartering a Working Group and requiring it to deliver
its final product(s).

Many of us favor a short development horizon with very clear stages of
development and firm milestones for deliverables. It has also been proposed
that the CMC should manage by schedule, and not by resource allocations. If a
WG bogs down and fails to meet its deliverables, it's a warning sign that
needs the attention of the CMC. Right now, the WGs pretty much set and modify
their own schedules and, without an automated mechanism to monitor progress
and issue appropriate management alerts, the CMC tends to lose visibility.

---------------------------------------------
At 03:52 PM 7/27/2006, Eduardo Bergamini wrote:
      Is it not the case to also add a separate track, with an appropriate
      scheduling, for the document version updating task ?
---------------------------------------------

Eduardo raises a good point, which is that an update to an existing standard
should theoretically require less time than developing a new standard.
However, this is not really a separate track: the process for an update
(White -> Pink -> Blue/Magenta) is the same for the original development, but
the schedule will usually be compressed.

Best regards


Adrian J. Hooke
Chairman, CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG)
_______________________________________________
CESG mailing list
CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg